Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Park, J.-r."
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Park, J.-r.: Metadata quality in digital repositories : a survey of the current state of the art (2009) 0.00
    0.0024857575 = product of:
      0.004971515 = sum of:
        0.004971515 = product of:
          0.00994303 = sum of:
            0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 2982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00994303 = score(doc=2982,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2982, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2982)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This study presents the current state of research and practice on metadata quality through focus on the functional perspective on metadata quality, measurement and evaluation criteria coupled with mechanisms for improving metadata quality. Quality metadata reflect the degree to which the metadata in question perform the core bibliographic functions of discovery, use, provenance, currency, authentication and administration. The functional perspective is closely tied to the criteria and measurements used for assessing metadata quality. Accuracy, completeness and consistency are the most common criteria used in measuring metadata quality in literature. Guidelines embedded within a web form or template perform a valuable function in improving the quality of the metadata. Results of the study indicate a pressing need for the building of a common data model that is interoperable across digital repositories.
    Type
    a
  2. Park, J.-r.: Semantic interoperability and metadata quality : an analysis of metadata item records of digital image collections (2006) 0.00
    0.0014647468 = product of:
      0.0029294936 = sum of:
        0.0029294936 = product of:
          0.005858987 = sum of:
            0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005858987 = score(doc=172,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper is a current assessment of the status of metadata creation and mapping between catalogerdefined field names and Dublin Core (DC) metadata elements across three digital image collections. The metadata elements that evince the most frequently inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete DC metadata application are identified. As well, the most frequently occurring locally added metadata elements and associated pattern development are examined. For this, a randomly collected sample of 659 metadata item records from three digital image collections is analyzed. Implications and issues drawn from the evaluation of the current status of metadata creation and mapping are also discussed in relation to the issue of semantic interoperability of concept representation across digital image collections. The findings of the study suggest that conceptual ambiguities and semantic overlaps inherent among some DC metadata elements hinder semantic interoperability. The DC metadata scheme needs to be refined in order to disambiguate semantic relations of certain DC metadata elements that present semantic overlaps and conceptual ambiguities between element names and their corresponding definitions. The findings of the study also suggest that the development of mediation mechanisms such as concept networks that facilitate the metadata creation and mapping process are critically needed for enhancing metadata quality.
    Type
    a